It looks to that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is going to be Obama’s NAFTA - an international trade agreement that hurts America more than it helps and is a black mark on the tenure of an otherwise relatively successful presidency.
It’s fracturing the Democratic party in ways previously only seen in their Republican counterparts. In fact, it’s the only thing that I can recall that the Republicans and Obama agree on!
I wanted to start a thread about the TPT. Why do we need it? What’s in it for America? Does it benefit only the wealthy or the rest of us?
Obama is no Liberal (despite what you might have heard) but why is he picking this issue to battle the left wing of his party while siding with a GOP that has never done him any favors?
I don’t know enough about the issue other than I used to think I could tell the players without a scorecard but right now, I can’t and it’s very disorienting.
What I’m not clear on is not why Obama favors such a treaty, but why is he so intent on it? Seems he’s invested more of himself into the TPP than into anything since the PPACA.
This should be the sort of thing that the GOP’s big-business allies should be the ones pressing for, and Obama should be saying, “sure, we’ll give you the treaty if you let us pass X, Y, and Z in return.” Instead, he’s pressing for it, and other Dems are saying “only if you give us X, Y, and Z.”
Maybe I’m too cynical, but I wonder if this treaty is a ruse, set up to give Hillary something to use to distinguish herself from Obama. Something that doesn’t make a huge difference either way, but still helps her establish her bona fides as a Friend of the American Worker. It might even be Warren’s idea. There’s just no other reason I can come up with for this controversy that makes more sense.
Generally speaking, free trade agreements are seen as good for consumers and world stability and bad for specific individual interests. So we should expect that, simply as a matter of public choice theory, national leaders will favor trade more than individual senators. That’s especially the case for individual senators who ever plan to win an election in Ohio or Michigan, etc.
Add the fact that harms from free trade usually fall on labor and benefits usually accrue to capital, and you understand the party split.
Finally you add to that dynamic the fact that there are some legitimate concerns about trade dispute resolution mechanisms in the agreement, about which reasonable people disagree.
There doesn’t need to be some explanatory conspiracy.
From leaks, it appears the intellectual property provisions are a media company wishlist–copyright extensions, criminalization of non-commercial copyright infringement, and other things that basically look like the DMCA on steroids.
Obama is not as openly in media companies’ pocket as his VP (Biden strikes me as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the MPAA) or even some Republicans, but I would not be surprised if they’re heavily influencing both the push and the insistence on secrecy. Some of the draconian laws they want enacted (SOPA and PIPA, notably) have been derailed in recent years, in part due to responses from an informed internet community. Now they’re trying another approach.
That’s pretty optimistic since you get to believe that Hillary, Obama, and the Dem party aren’t faithful representatives of the corporate system. They’re just pretending.
I thought the 11-dimensional chess thing died years ago, even on Daily Kos.
Presidents back free trade, because free trade=peace and world stability and better relations between nations. We haven’t had a protectionist President since Hoover, and there’s a reason for that.
Any Presidential candidate that says they don’t support the free trade agreements currently being debated are either Fed auditing-type cranks or are just liars.
As for whether or not it’s good, it is absolutely good. When deciding whether free trade agreements are a good thing, we first have to look at the policy status quo. It’s not like we’re moving from a situation where American workers are protected to one in which they won’t be. It’s more like a situation where we inadequately protect American workers while still lacking sufficient access to certain foreign markets. These deals solve the latter problem at the very least.
Republicans have their share of trade protectionists too. Some represent states/districts who’s economy is weighted towards firms with comparative disadvantage. The just generally protectionist tend to be associated with a label that didn’t exist during the NAFTA debate.
Liberals that hate the TPP allow me to introduce your new political allies… drum roll The Tea Party.
The Chinese are signing trade agreement and creating economic cooperation corridors right and kept. If the U.S wants to remain competitive then TPP is just the start. Otherwise, it’s another Africa, where the Chinese are making bridges and dykes and the Americans are bombing and not much else.
Agreed. This is not the only issue the President Obama has differed from Senator Obama on, so it’s pretty unremarkable that President Obama is differing from Senator “D”. Things often look different when your president. You’re looking out for the entire country, and you’re having to deal with foreign heads of state all the time.
Calling something a free trade agreement doesn’t make it one. This agreement seems to be mostly about extending the rights of intellectual property owners beyond where they are at present. (“Extracting rents” is the economic term of art, I believe - and it’s regarded as a bad thing.)
Not sure why it’s seen as a bad thing, unless you’re trying to buy or sell cheap knock-offs. There is a huge problem with knock-offs in Asia. There are bogus Apple Stores in China. Not just bogus products, but entire stores that set up to look like Apple Stores, but are not. (They may have been shut down by now, so it’s possible that the verb should have been “were” instead of “are”, but the principle is the same.)
I don’t see the problem, unless they’re selling them back to us. China is a sovereign nation, with its own set of laws and legal principles. If they choose to operate under different theories of ownership of intellectual property within their own borders, well, that’s the way the world works. And if they do try to sell the knock-offs back to us, we have every right to turn them back at the border.
Your argument would apply to all barriers to trade. Of course it’s the case that each nation is “a sovereign nation, with its own set of laws and legal principles” and what they do within their own borders is their business. If the US decides to subsidize the farming of rice, then tough nuts to China or other rice exporters who suffer–it’s our business. The argument for free trade is that countries ought not–and should agree not to–put up such trade barriers because it is net beneficial to everyone.
The line between trade barriers and laws that effect commerce is a very gray one. But traditionally one criteria is when the law disproportionately affects foreign goods instead of domestic ones, or when it is applied in a way that has that effect. There’s a pretty good argument that intellectual property rules in China, and elsewhere, qualify given the kind of goods that the US exports.
And that, of course, is one of the anti-trade arguments–that lots of laws will get challenged as improper barriers to trade. But there’s no way around that if you want to have free trade agreements at all. And, indeed, we have had such challenges for decades and, AFAIK, no US law has ever been changed as a consequence.
Yeah, and if they do then they are NOT engaging in Free Trade. You said protection of intellectual property was not part of Free Trade, but it is. Unless I’m misunderstanding you…
This topic does need debate, but I think this thread really belongs in GD, not Elections; almost certainly TPP will be a done deal before the next election.
